• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

“Enough Money"

Sandokan said:
What really puzzle me is that those on the left side of the spectrum, who don’t produce anything of value to satisfy a demand, have contempt for those who are successful. This is very common among the intellectual elite.
Click to expand...

What really puzzles me is that those on the partisan hackery side of the spectrum who don’t produce anything of value to satisfy a demand, have contempt for those who are utilize their brains. This is very common among the uneducated. :2wave:


Are you capable of posting anything that isn't partisan hackery? I see you completely avoided my post showing how all government spending is redistribution and how the rich do benefit from it as well.
 
TurtleDude said:
shouldn't those who own the company make that decision? and if you agree to work for a corporation for 8 bucks an hour what have you to complain about? Don't you believe that you are smart enough to contract wisely?
Click to expand...

Yeah, sure - it's purely a business' decision - not the government's business. And I support businesses who favor bonuses/etc to their employees.

My view is really not a big deal - There are actually companies who have a more moden corporate structure and who *still* honor their shareholders, their CEO's are still paid a larger sum - but their employees also reap a lot of benefits, too, above and beyond the average job . . . Google, for one, is an ideal employer in this way.
 
Socialism and Communism goal suppose to be the common good of the community. In reality their policies cause deprivation since the portion of the pie to be distributed to everyone become smaller and smaller. By contrast under a free market economy the pie grows and everyone get a bigger portion.

Citizens under Socialism and Communism become subservient of the government elite and bureaucrats, but under a democratic government with free enterprise that supports individual liberty the goal of the common good become reality.
 

Oh Boy there are so many thing wrong with that post I've having a problem deciding where to start.

First of all, Communism is a direct Democracy.
Second, Socialism is an economic system. Democratic is a political system. In case you are unaware, many democracies are socialist.
Third, there hasn't actually been a real Communist system in world history at a state level.
Fourth, many Socialist systems in Europe work in conjuction with the free market
Fifth, citizens under a plutocracy become subservient of the government elite and bureaucrats

Seriously. You really need an education. Stop watching pundits.

I still see you completely avoided my post showing how all government spending is redistribution and how the rich do benefit from it as well.
 

I would agree with you if the employee did not receive a salary or compensation of any kind other than a portion of the profits.

Why should the employee receive gauranteed payment then a portion of the profits just for doing a small part for the company.

How do you distribute the money to the employees?

Does a janitor make more or less than somebody in the warehouse and does that person make more or less than somebody with an engineering degree that designed a product?

Do you have it all figured out?
 
Last edited:

Nucor steel has a model program as can be seen from this dated excerpt:
Nucor: Building a Performance-Based Culture l Leading Practices in Business Ethics

eployees tend to be self enforcing, as a result. if a co-worked is engaging in practices that will negatively impact the bottom line, that will reduce the income of all. while they don't have direct ownership, this compensation program, assigning a specific portion of profits to the employees, does foster efficient business practices
 

people who cannot achieve tend to whine about capitalism. They claim they support income redistribution to make things "fair" but in reality, they are usually envious and upset that their intellects do not command near as much salary as they think they are worth so they are relegated to wishing that those who do better then they do get hit with punitive taxes.

The altruistic nature of socialism has long been exposed as a fraud used by bitter and hateful "intellectuals" to gain power from the masses.
 

Why is me being supportive of a more employee-appreciative type corporate structure a *big* deal?

A lot of people support this - every company I've worked for tried to implement programs where they'd *show* extra appreciation to their employees in respect of their hard work - in essence - an appreciated employee whose extra hard work is recognized is a happy and productive employee.

This is called fostering a positive work environment - business 101. It's business BASICS that almost everyone follow.

In fact, it's almost foolish *not* to appreciate your employees and boost morale with various incentives - treating the ones who *do* work harder as mere "everyone's the same" individuals can be counter productive.

"Employee of the month," "Christmas bonuses," "Employees appreciation day," "The office raffle." All of these are ways of boosting employee morale and showing appreciation to the harder workers.

Anyone can do the *basics* of the job: answer the phone, file papers. . . . because *that's* what they get paid $10.00/hr + standard benefits *to do* - just like every other employee.
But there are exceptional employees who take the initiative - get things done more precisely, come up with new and more productive ideas and then share it with management, encourage others to work hard, hold their selves and others accountable . . . . thus, these extra hard working employees are given recognition.

If you worked harder than Suzette who seemed to have no drive to get her job done on time - wouldn't you want your manager to *notice* and occasionally reward your hard work and 'give a ****' attitude?

So *why* is me saying "I support business-structures who honor the employee and appreciate the employee's hard work" a real big *shocking* deal to debate when it's business-basics and most company *do* implement programs that relate to doing *exactly that*

The investors still get their cut.

The management and company heads still get their cut.

The employee still gets their cut.

AND THEN - when the company does well because of *everyone's hard work* the management/company heads/employees ALL get their extra icing on the cake because they worked *extra hard* - not just to keep the company functioning - but to *improve* the way the company functions.

I simply favor the *employee* over *the CEO's* in this type of merit-recognition structure. . . and a lot of CEO's agree with me, too - because they're the ones who decide to implement merit-recognition to boost employee work performance. Afterall - CEO's are already paid a huge and fluctuating salary which *rises* when the company does well. They appreciate their selves . . . and they'll appreciate the employee if they want to *keep* that profit on the rise.
 
Last edited:

Functionally, its redistribution in the sense that collects money from one group (aka tax payers) and gives money to another group (aka government employees and contractors). Applying that sort of thinking would mean every transaction would be redistrbution of wealth. If I pay my mechanic to redo my brake lines, I am redistrubting a portion of my wealth to him, but I recieve a service in return. One that I find to be worth the wealth I pay, because I like to know that my car really will stop when I hit the breaks. The same is true in the case of national defense, courts, police, and infrastructure. Those people are providing a service to public in return for payments they recieve from the public. It's not about redistrubition of wealth, its about the people collectively purchasing the services they provide, through the means of government.
 
Psychoclown said:
Functionally, its redistribution in the sense that collects money from one group (aka tax payers) and gives money to another group (aka government employees and contractors).
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Applying that sort of thinking would mean every transaction would be redistribution of wealth.
Click to expand...

Which they are.

If I pay my mechanic to redo my brake lines, I am redistributing a portion of my wealth to him, but I receive a service in return.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me.


I'm still not sure what you are getting at. While it is true that they provide a service in return for payment, it still is functionally redistribution. Whether it is or isn't about redistribution of wealth doesn't suddenly not make it redistribution of wealth.

Remember, functionally all government spending is redistribution of income. Whether it be corporate subsidies that get turned into dividends for the rich or the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Complaining about just one, as Sandokan and Turtledude do often is dishonest and it shows they don't actually care about redistribution of wealth. They care about their redistribution of wealth. It's okay when middle class taxes get redistributed to them through corporate subsides, but it's not okay when their taxes go to the EITC.
 

you just cannot help your turtle derangement syndrome.

You again are lying about my position and most likely the other poster's. YOu again assume I get some sort of corporate subsidies.

the fact is the top 1% pay 40% of the income tax. Which means they are paying far more than they use and far more than their share of the income
 
TurtleDude said:
ERASED FOR FORUM RULES VIOLATION
Click to expand...

Is your name Psychoclown?

You again are lying about my position and most likely the other poster's. YOu again assume I get some sort of corporate subsidies.
Click to expand...

Where? You own stock no? 83% of all stocks are owned by 1% of the population. Many of the largest firms get corporate subsidies which invariably get turned into dividend payments.

the fact is the top 1% pay 40% of the income tax. Which means they are paying far more than they use and far more than their share of the income
Click to expand...

Which is irrelevant to my post. And you ignored Lord T's post which showed that Payroll taxes brought in nearly the same amount as income taxes and the top 1% don't pay 40% of payroll.

Redistribution is bad when it's my money, but good when I get it!
 

you mentioned me in your post to psychoclown

are you having short term memory issues

early onset dementia?

I know a good neurosurgeon who might be able to help
 

My point is when people talk about redistribution of wealth, they generally have a more narrow meaning then any transaction where wealth changes hands. No one complains about the government spending money on roads or police, because we can clearly see the value of what we get in return. When people complain about redistributing wealth, they're almost always talking about transfers in wealth that don't have a clear and equal (or greater) return on the wealth spent.

I agree its SUPREMELY hypocritical to complain about redistributing wealth to the poor and working class, while you ignore our massive wealth shifts in the form corporate subsidies, bailouts, tax breaks, and protectionist measures.
 
Psychoclown said:
My point is when people talk about redistribution of wealth, they generally have a more narrow meaning then any transaction where wealth changes hands.
Click to expand...

Well, when most people talk about redistribution of wealth, it's always about from the rich to the poor (see Turtledude). They tend to ignore that wealth redistribution flows both ways.


But that is still redistributing wealth. It may be for services that appear useful, but it doesn't change what it is.

I agree its SUPREMELY hypocritical to complain about redistributing wealth to the poor and working class, while you ignore our massive wealth shifts in the form corporate subsidies, bailouts, tax breaks, and protectionist measures.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

It's an ugly fact that 83% of all stocks are owned by 1% of the population. And the largest of the companies in that stock group get large corporate subsidies at the same time they are profitable. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the subsidies are getting turned into dividends for that 1%. Taxes from all groups are being redistributed to the rich. But apparently to more then a few people, that's okay while redistribution to the poor is bad! Never mind how redistribution like Reagan's Earned Income Tax credit are beneficial in turning poor consumers into middle class and thus generating more sales to corporations held by that 1% through stock.
 
Moderator's Warning:
OK, enough of the personal attacks and baiting.
 
people were making massive amounts of wealth on stock long before anyone ever heard of a corporate subsidy. I find it interesting that people constantly want to talk about taxes on wealth when the issue is taxes on income and the top 1% make 22% of the income yet pay almost 40% of the income taxes.
 
obvious Child said:
It's an ugly fact that 83% of all stocks are owned by 1% of the population.
Click to expand...

I can't find a link on that, OC. Have one? It's hard for me to believe. 3,000,000 people own 83% of stocks. Hard to believe.
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
I can't find a link on that, OC. Have one? It's hard for me to believe. 3,000,000 people own 83% of stocks. Hard to believe.
Click to expand...

its nonsense given that just about anyone with a 401K or a union pension or a government pension owns stock-either directly or indirectly. Those huge public sector unions like AFSCME or the NALC own lots of stock.
 
All I know is that I never have enough money

MY husband says it's because I keep spending all his money and thinking it's my own

*rimshot*
 

one would think that if the ultra-rich were truly paying a disproportionate share of the country's taxes then the gap between the rich and the middle class would be shrinking
but the opposite is actually occurring, which should indicate that the middle class has been carrying a disproportionate portion of the nation's tax obligation
 

Well - the rich keep getting richer . . and the poor keep getting poorer. . . from what I see many middle-class people are no longer middle class as they are unemployed and had to let go of many 'middle class' things.
 

If the rich are paying the most and the gap isn't shrinking, it means that the rich know how to manage their money and that they still have the highest tax obligation. They know how to invest and how to keep money coming in. Saving money in a bank usually isn't the best option if you know how to invest properly.
 
i am not saying they are not good money managers
i am saying the presentation that the ultra-rich pay a disproportionate share of the nation's tax is not supported by what we see as a real out come
if their share were excessive, we would find the gap between the rich and the middle class closing
instead, the opposite is the reality
thus, we should be able to fairly conclude that the middle class is actually subsidizing the elite class of Americans when it comes to the portion of taxes paid
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…